Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 5, 7 - 12, & 14 - 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 14, 18, 21, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Breed discloses: A system for vehicle alerting, comprising: (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0026, 0041, & 0042 a system for sensing and communicating the presence of animals or pedestrians near a roadway [i.e. a system for vehicle alerting])
one or more environment sensors disposed at or near a road along which a vehicle passes; and (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0073 – 0075 wherein the sensor and communication system may include a plurality of sensors for detecting the presence of animals or pedestrians near roadways, the sensors including a plurality of embodiments including microphones, cameras, thermal sensors, and LiDAR sensors [i.e. one or more environment sensors]. At least Paragraphs 0047 & 0050 of Breed, as well as Figure 5 of Breed, below, disclose wherein the sensor system may be mounted on a pole adjacent to the roadway or travel surface [i.e. the one or more environment sensors are disposed at or near a road along which a vehicle passes])
PNG
media_image1.png
606
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a processing device in communication with the one or more environment sensors, wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to perform operations comprising: (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0092 & 0097 wherein the system may include a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium linked to the sensors, said program configured to be executed at a processor of a server [i.e. a processing device configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to perform operations in communication with the one or more environment sensors])
detecting with the one or more environment sensors a living object at or near the road; (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0042 wherein the presence of animals or pedestrians [i.e. living objects] may be detected using a sensor and communication system, including through infrared and optical sensors. At least Paragraphs 0073 & 0074 of Breed further disclose wherein upon the detection of the presence of an animal [i.e. upon the detection of a living object] a plurality of operations may take place, including the detection of and communication with approaching vehicles)
generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road; and transmitting the alert to the vehicle, (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0074 & 0075 wherein in response to the detected presence of an animal or pedestrian [i.e. living object] the sensor and communication system is configured to activate an electromagnetic communication system to inform the driver of the approaching vehicle that animals or pedestrians are present. At least Paragraphs 0013 & 0063 of Breed further disclose wherein the communication may be a wireless transmission intended for reception by a vehicle navigation system, which may present the alarm on a display of the navigational system of the vehicle as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0087 [i.e. generating and transmitting an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road])
Breed however appears to be silent regarding:
determining if the living object meets at least one threshold value selected from: (i) a height threshold value, and/or (ii) a distance threshold to the road which is dependent on a detected current speed of the living object:
if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road; wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle processing device configured to adjust operation of the vehicle based on the alert.
However Stein teaches wherein a detected object may be compared to a threshold height to determine if the vehicle should respond to the object or not.
determining if the living object meets at least one threshold value selected from: (i) a height threshold value, and/or (ii) a distance threshold to the road which is dependent on a detected current speed of the living object: (However Stein teaches in at least Paragraph 0195 wherein a detected object, such as an animal as taught in at least Paragraph 0199, may be analyzed, including the comparison of the height of the object to a threshold to determine if the object height is greater than the specified threshold or not [i.e. determining if the living object meets at least a height threshold value])
if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle processing device configured to adjust operation of the vehicle based on the alert. (However Stein teaches in at least Paragraphs 0226 & 0227 wherein in response to the detected object exceeding the threshold, the vehicle system may determine that an action is needed in response, including changing the directional course of the vehicle through steering commands, or generating feedback information to the human operator to take control of the vehicle [i.e. if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, adjusting operation of the vehicle based on the alert])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of if to output an alert or not based on the detected height of the object, as well as controlling the vehicle accordingly as taught by Stein.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stein in at least Paragraphs 0195 & 0226, the vehicle may be informed of and appropriately respond to objects of a threshold height as to be relevant to vehicle operation, improving the safety of the vehicle responding to detected environmental objects.
Regarding Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more environment sensors include at least one of an infrared camera, or LiDAR.
Breed discloses in at least Paragraph 0075 wherein the sensing system may utilize sensors including a camera, thermal IR sensor [i.e. an infrared camera], radar, or lidar to detect the presence of pedestrians in the road environment.
Regarding Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a user interface associated with the vehicle.
Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0087 & 0095 wherein the vehicle may include a display [i.e. a user interface associated with the vehicle] configured to display an alarm generated and transmitted by the one or more sensors [i.e. the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a user interface associated with the vehicle].
Regarding Claim 14:
The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
However Stein teaches in at least Paragraphs 0003, 0004, & 0077 wherein an autonomous vehicle may be equipped with a camera system to detect the height of obstacles in the roadway environment and respond accordingly [i.e. the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the integration of the system with an autonomous vehicle as taught by Stein.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stein in at least Paragraphs 0003, 0004, & 0077, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, a vehicle may be provided that receives and automatically responds to detected obstacles, improving the safety of navigation of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
Breed discloses: A computer-implemented method for vehicle alerting, comprising: (Breed discloses in at least Paragraph 0009 a method for conveying driving conditions determined by a sensor to a vehicle, which may be implemented via a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0097 [i.e. a computer-implemented method for vehicle alerting])
detecting with one or more environment sensors a living object at or near a road, (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0042 wherein the presence of animals or pedestrians [i.e. living objects] may be detected using a sensor and communication system near the roadway, including through infrared and optical sensors. At least Paragraphs 0073 & 0074 of Breed further disclose wherein upon the detection of the presence of an animal [i.e. upon the detection of a living object] a plurality of operations may take place, including the detection of and communication with approaching vehicles)
the one or more environment sensors disposed at or near the road along which a vehicle passes; and (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0073 – 0075 wherein the sensor and communication system may include a plurality of sensors for detecting the presence of animals or pedestrians near roadways, the sensors including a plurality of embodiments including microphones, cameras, thermal sensors, and LiDAR sensors [i.e. one or more environment sensors]. At least Paragraphs 0047 & 0050 of Breed, as well as Figure 5 of Breed, above, disclose wherein the sensor system may be mounted on a pole adjacent to the roadway or travel surface [i.e. the one or more environment sensors are disposed at or near a road along which a vehicle passes])
executing instructions stored in a memory with a processing device in communication with the one or more environment sensors to perform operations comprising: (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0092 & 0097 wherein the system may include a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium linked to the sensors, said program configured to be executed at a processor of a server [i.e. executing instructions stored in a memory with a processing device in communication with the one or more environment sensors to perform operations])
generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road; and transmitting the alert to the vehicle, (Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0074 & 0075 wherein in response to the detected presence of an animal or pedestrian [i.e. living object] the sensor and communication system is configured to activate an electromagnetic communication system to inform the driver of the approaching vehicle that animals or pedestrians are present. At least Paragraphs 0013 & 0063 of Breed further disclose wherein the communication may be a wireless transmission intended for reception by a vehicle navigation system, which may present the alarm on a display of the navigational system of the vehicle as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0087 [i.e. generating and transmitting an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road])
Breed however appears to be silent regarding:
determining if the living object meets at least one threshold value selected from: (i) a height threshold value, and/or (ii) a distance threshold to the road which is dependent on a detected current speed of the living object;
if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle processing device configured to adjust operation of the vehicle based on the alert.
However Stein teaches wherein a detected object may be compared to a threshold height to determine if the vehicle should respond to the object or not.
determining if the living object meets at least one threshold value selected from: (i) a height threshold value, and/or (ii) a distance threshold to the road which is dependent on a detected current speed of the living object; (However Stein teaches in at least Paragraph 0195 wherein a detected object, such as an animal as taught in at least Paragraph 0199, may be analyzed, including the comparison of the height of the object to a threshold to determine if the object height is greater than the specified threshold or not [i.e. determining if the living object meets at least a height threshold value])
if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, generating an alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle processing device configured to adjust operation of the vehicle based on the alert. (However Stein teaches in at least Paragraphs 0226 & 0227 wherein in response to the detected object exceeding the threshold, the vehicle system may determine that an action is needed in response, including changing the directional course of the vehicle through steering commands, or generating feedback information to the human operator to take control of the vehicle [i.e. if the living object meets the at least one threshold value, adjusting operation of the vehicle based on the alert])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of if to output an alert or not based on the detected height of the object as taught by Stein.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stein in at least Paragraphs 0195 & 0226, the vehicle may be informed of and appropriately respond to objects of a threshold height as to be relevant to vehicle operation, improving the safety of the vehicle responding to detected environmental objects.
Regarding Claim 20:
The computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a user interface associated with the vehicle.
Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0087 & 0095 wherein the vehicle may include a display [i.e. a user interface associated with the vehicle] configured to display an alarm generated and transmitted by the one or more sensors [i.e. the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a user interface associated with the vehicle].
Regarding Claim 21:
The system of claim 1, wherein if the living object does not meet the at least one threshold value, the alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road is not transmitted to the vehicle.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose not transmitting an alert when the threshold value is not met.
However Stein teaches in at least Paragraphs 0195 & 0226 wherein if a detected object does not exceed a threshold height, no action may be taken for a detected object [i.e. if the living object does not meet the at least one threshold value, the alert regarding the detected living object at or near the road is not transmitted to the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the non-transmission of an alert responsive to the object not meeting a threshold value as taught by Stein.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stein in at least Paragraph 0226, the vehicle may only respond to travel-relevant objects, improving the relevance of alerts sent to the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 22:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one threshold value includes a size threshold value.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the threshold value includes a size threshold value.
However Stein teaches in at least Paragraph 0195 wherein a detected object, such as an animal as taught in at least Paragraph 0199, may be analyzed, including the comparison of the height of the object to a threshold to determine if the object height is greater than the specified threshold or not [i.e. determining if the living object meets at least a size threshold value]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of if to output an alert or not based on the detected size of the object as taught by Stein.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stein in at least Paragraphs 0195 & 0226, the vehicle may be informed of and appropriately respond to objects of a threshold height as to be relevant to vehicle operation, improving the safety of the vehicle responding to detected environmental objects.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 18 above, and further in view of Siebert (US 2021/0347383 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise detecting with the one or more environment sensors whether the living object is moving towards or away from the road.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operations include detecting if the living object moves towards or away from the road.
However Siebert teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0072 – 0074 wherein a model may be used to determine the intent of an object in the environment such as a pedestrian [i.e. a living object], including if the object intends to enter a road either through a crosswalk or by “jaywalking,” or if the object intends to move away from the road [i.e. the operations comprise detecting with the one or more environment sensors whether the living object is moving towards or away from the road].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of if the object approaches or moves away from the road as taught by Siebert.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Siebert in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0079, the intent of the living object in the environment may be inferred, improving the planning of the trajectory of the vehicle responsive to the environment.
Regarding Claim 4:
The system of claim 3, wherein the operations comprise generating a trajectory vector for the living object moving towards or away from the road, the trajectory vector representative of the speed of the living object.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise generating a trajectory vector representative of the speed of the living object.
However Siebert teaches in at least Paragraph 0026, 0039, & 0083 wherein predicted trajectories of objects in the environment may be determined, including predicted position, velocity, and acceleration information for the objects [i.e. generating a trajectory vector for the living object moving towards or away from the road, the trajectory vector representative of the speed of the living object].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of an object trajectory as taught by Siebert.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Siebert in at least Paragraphs 0039 & 0083, the object’s likely future position may be more accurately determined, improving the representation and prediction of the vehicle environment.
Regarding Claim 19:
The computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein the operations comprise detecting with the one or more environment sensors whether the living object is moving towards or away from the road.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operations include detecting if the living object moves towards or away from the road.
However Siebert teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0072 – 0074 wherein a model may be used to determine the intent of an object in the environment such as a pedestrian [i.e. a living object], including if the object intends to enter a road either through a crosswalk or by “jaywalking,” or if the object intends to move away from the road [i.e. the operations comprise detecting with the one or more environment sensors whether the living object is moving towards or away from the road].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of if the object approaches or moves away from the road as taught by Siebert.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Siebert in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0079, the intent of the living object in the environment may be inferred, improving the planning of the trajectory of the vehicle responsive to the environment.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 11, 12, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Devar (US 2024/0383472 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the living object is an animal, wherein the operations comprise identifying a type of the animal detected by the one or more environment sensors.
Breed discloses in at least Paragraphs 0041, 0073, & 0074 wherein the sensor and communication system may be utilized to detect the presence of animals in the vicinity of a roadway [i.e. wherein the living object is an animal]. Breed however does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a type of animal detected by the one or more environment sensors is identified.
However Devar teaches in at least Paragraphs 0054 & 0055 wherein an animal identification model is utilized to identify animals in the environment of the vehicle, based on analyzing received sensor data from a sensor suite, which may include cameras and LiDAR sensors [i.e. identifying a type of the animal detected by the one or more environment sensors]. The identification may include, as taught in at least Paragraphs 0054 – 0057 of Devar, a neural network model configured to output a particular species of animal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the identification of animal type based on sensor data as taught by Devar.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Devar in at least Paragraph 0063, an animal’s behavior may be predicted based on the classification of the animal, thus improving the prediction of living object behavior.
Regarding Claim 8:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a smart device of a user traveling in the vehicle.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose transmitting an alert to a smart device of a user.
However Devar teaches in at least Paragraphs 0036, 0037, & 0083 wherein a user device, such as a smartphone or tablet [i.e. a smart device of a user] may provide information about a detected animal to a user during rides in response to the detection of said animal [i.e. the operations comprise transmitting the alert to a smart device of a user traveling in the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the transmission of animal information to a user device as taught by Devar.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Devar in at least Paragraph 0037, a user may be informed regarding the presence of a detected animal, improving the user awareness of the vehicle situation.
Regarding Claim 11:
The system of claim 1, comprising one or more vehicle sensors associated with the vehicle.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the vehicle includes associated sensors.
However Devar teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0039 wherein an autonomous vehicle includes a sensor suite for detecting an environment, including detecting animals in the vehicle environment. At least Paragraphs 0040 – 0045 of Devar further teach wherein the sensor suite may include cameras, audio sensors, and LiDAR sensors, among other sensor types [i.e. one or more vehicle sensors associated with the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the use of one or more vehicle sensors associated with the vehicle as taught by Devar.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Devar in at least Paragraph 0038, the vehicle may be configured to capture the environment, improving the vehicle situation awareness.
Regarding Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to detect the living object as the vehicle approaches the living object.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to detect the living object as the vehicle approaches the living object.
However Devar teaches in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0039 wherein an autonomous vehicle includes a sensor suite for detecting an environment, including detecting animals in the vehicle environment, such as nearby the vehicle door. At least Paragraphs 0045, 0069, & 0070 of Devar further teaches wherein the vehicle sensor suite may be utilized to detect and monitor animals approaching a roadway or that the vehicle approaches [i.e. wherein the one or more vehicle sensors are configured to detect the living object as the vehicle approaches the living object].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the configuration of vehicle sensors to detect living objects as taught by Devar.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Devar in at least Paragraph 0038, the vehicle may be configured to capture the environment, including animals in the environment which may be classified via the sensor data, improving the vehicle situation awareness of surrounding living objects.
Regarding Claim 15:
The system of claim 1, wherein adjusting operation of the vehicle based on the alert includes automatically decelerating the vehicle.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose decelerating a vehicle automatically in response to an alert.
However Devar teaches in at least Paragraphs 0078 & 0079 wherein a fleet management system may be informed of an animal at a specific location, and may instruct [i.e. alert] other autonomous vehicles in the area to drive more slowly or cautiously based on such [i.e. adjusting operation of the vehicle based on the alert includes automatically decelerating the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the automatic deceleration of a vehicle in response to an alert as taught by Devar.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Devar in at least Paragraph 0079, collisions with animals may be more effectively avoided, improving the safety of the vehicle during travel.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morales (US 2016/0355181 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise collecting historical data of detected living objects and generating migration patterns for the detected living objects.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein migration patterns are generated based on historical data of the detected living objects.
However Morales teaches in at least Paragraphs 0015 & 0082 a collision avoidance device for a vehicle including a memory that stores behavior characteristics index values for a plurality of types of animals, as well as sensing systems that determine animal position, speed, and direction [i.e. historical data of detected living objects is collected]. At least Paragraphs 0084, 0095, & 0096 of Morales further teach wherein the future behavior of the animals may be generated based on the above data, with various behavior patterns including direction and speed of the animal, as well as generalized behaviors such as stopping and running away, being associated with various probabilities [i.e. generating migration patterns for the detected living objects based on the historical data].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of possible behavior patterns for the detected animals as taught by Morales.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Morales in at least graph 0095, the animal’ future position may be better estimated, improving the vehicle response to animals encountered in the traveling environment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bravo (US 2022/0068125 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 2, wherein the migration patterns are representatives of geographic areas having a high instance of the detected living objects, and wherein the operations comprise generating a mission route for the vehicle based on the migration patterns to avoid the geographic areas having the high instance of the detected living objects.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the operations include generating a mission route for the vehicle based on the migration patterns.
However Bravo teaches in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0048 wherein a vehicle collaboration program may gather additional data, including data on species migration patterns, with at least Paragraph 0055 of Bravo teaching wherein the data may be evaluated to avoid certain routes for the vehicle based on the predicted animal movements [i.e. wherein the migration patterns are representatives of geographic areas having a high instance of the detected living objects, and generating a mission route for the vehicle based on the migration patterns to avoid the geographic areas having the high instance of the detected living objects].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the determination of vehicle route based on migration patterns as taught by Bravo.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Bravo in at least Paragraphs 0026, 0048, & 0055, the vehicle may operate by better predicting animal movements, improving the safety of the vehicle by reducing he probability of interactions with migrating animals.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) in view of Stein (US 2019/0294179 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (US 2019/0138822 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more environment sensors are configured to detect the living object within a 1,600 ft radius around the respective environment sensors.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose a specific detection radius for the sensors.
However Yao teaches in at least Paragraphs 0032, 0036, & 0039 wherein sensing devices, which may include a camera or LiDAR sensors, may detect objects including persons or animals within 500 meters [1640 ft] of the sensors [i.e. the one or more environment sensors are configured to detect the living object within a 1,600 ft radius around the respective environment sensors].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the specific sensor detection radius as taught by Yao.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Yao in at least Paragraphs 0032, 0036, & 0039, the sensor system may detect all objects within the scope of the sensor, improving the sensing of animals and persons in the environment of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (US 2017/0249838 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kutila (US 2019/0143967 A1).
Regarding Claim 17:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise transmitting the alert to the vehicle when the vehicle is within 1 mile of the one or more environment sensors detecting the living object.
Breed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the alert is transmitted when the vehicle is within a one-mile range of the sensor.
However Kutila teaches in at least Paragraphs 0032 – 0035 wherein real-time safety incident data may be exchanged between local vehicles, said incidents including the presence of an animal on the road, with data being shared to vehicles within a range of 1500 meters [0.932 miles] away [i.e. transmitting the alert to the vehicle when the vehicle is within 1 mile of the one or more environment sensors detecting the living object].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Breed by incorporating the transmission of an alert when the vehicle is within a 1500-meter radius as taught by Kutila.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Kutila in at least Paragraphs 0032 & 0035, local real-time data may be shared with vehicles which may determine appropriate interventions to respond to the local environment, improving the notification of relevant data to vehicles.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Sakurada (US 2020/0293035 A1): Sakurada recites a driving control system for a fleet of vehicles, including the detection of wild animals in the environment. Information may be communicated between vehicles to raise the detection accuracy of wild animals, with a central server being utilized to share said data.
Caminiti (US 2010/0100324 A1): Caminiti recites a roadside sensing infrastructure, including the sensing of pedestrians, and the prediction of the path of such. The possibility of collision between vehicles and pedestrians is determined, and communicated to vehicles.
Rahimpour (US 2024/0253652 A1): Rahimpour recites an animal detection system for a vehicle, including the prediction of trajectories of detected animals. Upon an animal being detected, tracked, and determined to intersect the path of the vehicle, the vehicle actuates an automated response to avoid said collision.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights